Owners Want to Eliminate Sign-and-Trades

[LooseCannon]

So reports Marc Stein.

I am not in favor of a hard salary cap, but I like this idea, if only to end the spate of ridiculous S&T trade idea threads on the forum.

[Chris]

This is kind of burying the lead, isn't it?

This was a small part of their proposal, where they wanted a hard cap (that is right around where the cap is now, and kicks in 3-4 years from now), roll backs of current salary (I believe it was 15, 25, and 35% depending on the size of the contract), and a kind of franchise tag (that won't be unilateral like the NFL, but more like the ability to overpay 1 player per team).

While the Sign and trades were also part of it, if the owners get even half of what they want, it is going to completely change the way business is done anyways, so the lack of sign and trades will be a very minor difference.

[LooseCannon]

Not really burying the lead.  The hard cap and franchise tag have been talked about before.  I think the end of S&Ts is a new idea (this is the first I have heard of, at least) and I just want to highlight something that might be overlooked.

[dasani]

i'm for this. doesn't seem too bad

[BballTim]

  I don't think it's a bad idea.

  It's always interesting when they do the bargaining in the nba because it's such a superstar-driven league. The interests of the stars and the agents are often at odds with the interests of the majority of the players.

[jpd985]

I hope both sides push for refs that don't suck.

[Who]

If they bring in a hard cap, I think they should use the luxury tax line as the cap number.

[Chris]

Not really burying the lead.  The hard cap and franchise tag have been talked about before.  I think the end of S&Ts is a new idea (this is the first I have heard of, at least) and I just want to highlight something that might be overlooked.

But my point is, if there is a hard cap anyways, they don't need sign and trades, and I think that is really where this comes from.  

If there is a hard cap, then it basically will eliminate the need to match salaries in trades in general.  Teams just need to make room for them under the cap to be able to make the trade, and if they are a free agent, they will just sign them.

The biggest reason they want to get rid of the sign and trade is because in this new system they also want to have a way to reward star players with signing with their current teams through a type of franchise player contract.  However, if they allow sign and trades, it will completely take any teeth out of that, because it means players can simply force their team to sign and trade them to the team they want to sign with anyways, so they can get that extra money.

[Chris]

If they bring in a hard cap, I think they should use the luxury tax line as the cap number.

It all depends on the actual revenue numbers.  If they are as low as owners claim (I'm skeptical, but thats all we can go on right now), then it makes sense just to shrink things like they are trying to.  Basically roll back current salaries, lower all future salaries, and make it so it fits in the current cap number. 

So, instead of the average salary being nearly $6 million a year as it is now, the average salary will be closer to $4 million a year, making it about to fit a team under a ~$60 million cap.

[Who]

I'd love to see them get rid of annual increases on max contracts + MLE deals.

On max contracts, because you start off with a guy earning let's say $17 million a year but by the end of his contract he is up at $25 million which is ridiculous. Puts too much pressure on the club. The max should be the max. You can't earn more than that. No annual increases.

On MLE contracts, because it is an average salary for an average player but in the years three to five, the player is earning far more than average. And as we've seen over the years, there are much fewer success stories with full MLE offers than failures.

I'd also like to see contracts last a maximum of 4/5 years instead of the current 5/6 years

Plus, for MLE contracts to be given a 3 year maximum. Because again, GM's + owners regularly screw up the MLE contracts. A rule similar to the you can't trade draft picks in successive years because bad owners/GMs in the past ruined their team doing so.

[Roy H.]

I was thinking about this today, actually.  (Yes, this is what I do with my free time). 

Eliminating sign-and-trades could help teams keep their own free agents, assuming that teams could still offer their free agents more than outside teams can offer.  Right now, sign-and-trades are used to circumvent that.

At the same time, this hurts teams that lose free agents.  Currently, when a team loses a free agent, they can at least trade him for a trade exception and draft picks.  Those trade exceptions can prove valuable when trying to bring in new talent.  Eliminating that potentially makes it harder for teams to recover.

Of course, with a hard cap, the necessity of sign-and-trades almost disappears, as teams with cap space can sign guys, and teams without space can't. 

[Who]

I'd also like to see restricted free agency become a lot less frequent or possibly abolished altogether.

At most, I would be willing to give restricted free agent status to players coming off of rookie contracts if their team was willing to give them a $10+ million qualifying offer to make them restricted.

None of this Charlie Bell and Mickael Pietrus being restricted free agents nonsense. Role players shouldn't have their movement restricted. It makes too large a difference to their earning power.

And players who are restricted, should be better compensated.

[Who]

I also think the pension system needs to be re-thought.

I think it's silly to be giving players of today pensions in the future. They are earning multi-million dollar deals. They shouldn't be eligible for pensions. They will earn more than enough in their playing days + have more than enough working years left in their lives to live comfortably.

Keep the pensions for players of yesteryears but find a cut off point. The league shouldn't have to be shouldering this unnecessary expenditure.

[Who]

Another one that bugs me is that players with 10+ years experience can earn their largest max contract at 35% of the cap ... how in the world does that make sense?

A player's best years come between 25-30. That is when they should have their max earning power.

In their thirties, when most start declining, their max contract status should decrease back to the rate it is for younger players (25%).

[Celtic]

Maybe put an end to trades where the salaries have to match up so you don't have a situation like Memphis giving away Gasol again. I guess they could just judge trades based on 2k ratings rather than cash, the total trade has to be within 5 points of one another.